Actually quite tame by Newt’s standards:
“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”
Here’s part of interview National Review did with the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown.
Q: What’s next for marriage in California?
A: This will go to the Supreme Court, where we expect to win. Remember that originally, the gay legal establishment opposed this case, because they fear what we anticipate: that they don’t yet have five votes for a constitutional right to gay marriage. Two lawyers with very big egos (Olson and Boies) pushed this case over more sober heads, and I think in the end gay-marriage advocates will regret that they did. If the Supreme Court fails to act to protect our right to vote for marriage, Congress will have to step in with some kind of amendment.
Q: What’s next for marriage, period?
A: Let me promise you one thing: This is going to light a fire for November among voters who care about marriage. In just three years, NOM has grown from nothing to 35,000 donors, 700,000 activists, and (last year) a budget of $9 million. We are going to raise a lot of money and attract a lot of activists, and we are going to use them to make a difference this November.
What are your thoughts?
The more I read the judge’s ruling, the more I love it. It’s got to be like my favorite language of all time. He couldn’t have been more succinct, and couldn’t have laid out the facts better. It’s just a beautiful opinion, and should be read by everyone.
I hope it goes to the SCOTUS, even with our odd bunch of Catholic far-right extremists.
And I hear he’s a hardcore Republican. All the better!
Bigots will be bigots. No one has to light a fire for them to burn.
A stray thought came my way as I heard about this ruling earlier today. That thought was,” If, as the Supreme Court said when striking down the Florida ban on interracial marriage, who can be married is entirely up to the individual, and as the Supreme Court has said, corporations are people with all the rights of human persons, then can a corporation marry? Marry a person? Marry another corporation?”
I’m all in favor of Judge Walker’s ruling. Just had this irreverent thought, which to me, underscores the il-logic of the Supreme Court’s opinion.
In fact, if you apply Judge Walker’s reasoning to the universe of human-human marriages, then polygamy, line marriage, kin marriage, all become legal. Considering this, I say, “Why not?” I don’t see any significant effect on the country. Kin marriage is not advisable genetically, but so are other non-kin marriages, such as the marriage of two persons who are carriers of Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell. I would draw the line very broadly, allowing all human-human marriages excepting only minors and other legal incompetents. So a few unexpected persons get tax breaks. Is that going to destroy the country? No. It is religious bigotry that is going to destroy the country.
I just lay it on the line that two consenting adults can marry. Polygamy comes with too many challenges, and polygamy in contemporary society almost always involves child abuse (if children are in fact involved).
However, to the rest of your post? I daresay, cosigned! Incestuous? I don’t care, although again, father-daughter/mother-son relationships are a big red flag for abuse, even if there’s “consent.” Still, most of me wants to say still, “whatever floats your boat.”
Just think of the potential for legal fees! Two men and one woman are married. One man wants to divorce the other, but the woman doesn’t want to. Et cetera
Oh, if “plural marriage” is allowed, it’s just a matter of time before the entire GOP caucus plus their K street friends is in one big gay plural marriage.
For some, it would be teh hawt gay secks (wetsuits optional), but mostly it would be for the ability to avoid testifying against each other.
And they can always have their ‘regular’ wives, mistresses, and girlfriends on the side.
Yep. But on both sides of the issue.
If Newt were honest, he’d admit that his idea of marriage is one man and one woman… and his other woman. That’s been his pattern.
Marriage is the union of one man and one non-cancerous woman.
IRS, please watch closely this fall for churches engaging in political harangue. Loss of not-for-profit status for certain mega-institutions could go a long way toward closing the deficit gap.
<not holding my breath on that, though>
Amen to that. I was driving through central California recently and heard a religious station talking about writing and calling their Senators and Congresspeople urging them to be pro-life (life as defined only by what happens in a womb. Once you’re born, of course, you are fair game.)
I was happy for all my gay friends, which are numerous, today. But I expect more battles will follow before this is a done deal. Still, it’s a huge step forward!
My thoughts are primarily that NOM can suck my dick.
Many of them would surely like that. Doth protesting too much, etc.
Brian Brown – welcome to the brier patch.
I think he’ll find that the return on his dollar is significantly less than he expected in terms of election results…
With any luck, threats like these might do more to mobilize the unreliable young voters than anything the Dems could do. Which could in turn change the whole election outlook.
Last night (I think) Olbermann reran his commentary from back when Prop 8 passed. I thought it was new for a while because it’s probably the best rebuttal to the whiners about the court ruling I’ve ever heard. Well worth seeing again — or for the first time.
I get tired of Olbermann’s gimmicks and showbiz attempts, but when he’s on he’s really on.